property Archives - Milton and Cross

3 Important things you need to know about Deeds of Assignment in Nigeria

Posted on June 4, 2021June 4, 2021 by admin in real estate, transaction advisory

Deeds of assignment are an important part of any land transaction in Nigeria. It acts as the main record of the transaction between the Seller and the Buyer. The Deed of Assignment transfers legal ownership of the property to the Buyer. This is distinct from a Contract of Sale, which merely transfers equitable ownership to the buyer.

Where a seller delivers a Deed of Assignment to the Buyer, the law assumes that the purchase price has been paid, and other necessary conditions have been fulfilled by the parties. The Seller cannot later say that he did not receive the purchase price.

Do you have a contract to sign?

Let’s help you review it!

Book a Consultation

Key elements of A Deed of Assignment

The Property’s Legal Owner must sign the Deeds of Assignment

A Deed of Assignment of Land must be executed by the Legal Owner of the property. Legal title is the actual ownership of the property. Legal title grants true ownership of the property, along with the bundle of rights that comes with land ownership.

A simple search at your state lands registry can help you identify the title holder. We recommend that you do this search as part of your due diligence process. This saves you stress in the future.

To register your title, you must have filed an application for Governor’s Consent with your State Lands Registry. In some situations, a seller may be eligible to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy.

Where a seller has not registered his title with the State Government, he/she can only transfer equitable title to the property. This means that the Legal title still resides in the last person who registered their title with the state.

A Rule of Thumb: If the seller is not the registered title holder, they cannot sign the Deed of Assignment

You must do your due diligence beforehand

Generally, the law expects a buyer to physically inspect the property he wants to purchase. He should also verify the title documents. A seller can only transfer his/her rights to the buyer. This means that if there are any limitations to their rights, those limitations will be passed on to the buyer. This can be quite infuriating.

This process should tell you whether you are buying the land from the right person, if there is any encumbrance on the land (such as an unpaid mortgage) or whether the land is suitable for your purposes. Facts discovered during the search process may affect your negotiations with the seller.

Recitals are Important

Recitals can make or break your Deeds of Assignment. This is because the root of title has to be clearly outlined and traceable within the recital. You must always ensure that there are no gaps in the chain of title between past owners of that property and the seller. Furthermore, any errors in your recital may lead to lengthy and costly litigation in the future. You could also experience immense frustration when trying to register your title with the government.

There is a widely-held perception that the recitals are legally inconsequential, since their role is fundamentally ‘scene-setting’ in nature and they do not automatically form part of the operative, legally binding agreement between the contracting parties. However, when a dispute arises and a court or arbitrator has to decipher the contract, the recitals may aid interpretation. They are, after all, clearly a part of the written contract in some way or other.

Milton & Cross Solicitors provides transaction advisory, due diligence and contract drafting services to individuals and businesses. We are always happy to assist you in coordinating and negotiating effective Deeds of Assignment.

Book a Consultation today

Why Lawyers Make Good Early-Stage Startup Hires

Posted on September 12, 2017 by admin in Compliance, Corporate Governance, entrepreneurship, International Investment, investment advisory, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, rule of law, Small Businesses, strategy, transaction advisory, Uncategorized, upscale, wealth

the20law20of20startups20icon

By Daniel Doktori and Sarah Reed (culled From hbr.org)

It’s a startup shibboleth that entrepreneurship and formal education don’t mix. For icons such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, so goes the lore, finishing a bachelor’s degree would have only stifled the creativity that fueled their companies to stratospheric success. PayPal founder Peter Thiel offers a $100,000 fellowship to “young people who want to build new things instead of sitting in a classroom.” Graduate degrees are thought to merely exacerbate the problem of too much thinking, too little doing. And while high-profile efforts by top business schools to teach and promote entrepreneurship have lessened the stigma around the MBA, the law degree continues to occupy a unique place of villainy among the startup set. After all, YouTube, Uber, and Airbnb, among many others, were founded on ideas that challenged, if not broke, laws and regulations. When it comes to a tech startup, lawyers are a bug, not a feature. Right?

Maybe not. Lawyers can add value in the obvious ways, helping to avoid early mistakes like issuing stock too late in the game, when the company has grown in value and the employees can no longer take advantage of favorable tax treatment. But more importantly, a lawyer on the early team can contribute to a thriving company culture by asking the right questions at the right times, providing perspective on crucial transactions, and getting smart fast on issues where the rest of the team lacks expertise.

Lawyers help startups deal with common transactions and avoid costly mistakes.

Issuing equity to the early team often triggers time-sensitive filings with the IRS. Successfully commercializing a product depends upon clean and clear lines of intellectual property ownership. Raising outside financing requires compliance with complex securities laws. A misstep on any of these items could mean an early exit for a startup company (and not the good kind). A corporate lawyer with a few years of relevant training can help navigate these and other common set-up requirements.

Moreover, lawyers, particularly corporate transactional lawyers, have repeated exposure to the types of deals — and the associated risks — that a startup will face. The dynamics between a CEO and the investors on her board are a function of the legal arrangements articulated in the financing agreements. The relationship between a company and its customers stems from a license agreement governing how users may interact with a product. Partnering with a larger company in a similar industry can, in the best case, open new markets or, in the worst, box a company into a corner, severely limiting options for growth and eventual acquisition. Lawyers understand these transactions and the perspectives of the negotiators involved.

And when the complexity of the particular deal exceeds the expertise of the lawyer on the team, she can play the savvy procurer of legal services, knowing how to target efforts and limit costs. Such experience comes in handy in managing other third-party service providers such as bankers, accountants, and consultants.

While these benefits are valuable, however, they don’t in and of themselves justify a startup hiring a full-time in-house lawyer. Early stage companies — at least those with founders sufficiently experienced or savvy to recognize that they walk a road pitted with legal potholes — tend to manage such standard risks by hiring outside counsel. And while the costs associated with that outside attorney often rank among the highest in a startup’s budget, they do not typically rise to the level of a full-time annual salary. To justify her presence among the first dozen employees, a lawyer must add something beyond legal knowledge to the equation.

Lawyers are trained to ask the right questions at the right times.

Counterintuitively, lawyers can add the strategic absence of knowledge. President Harry Truman famously longed for a “one-handed economist” when presented with the equivocating analysis of his advisers, but executives in politics and business need to understand opposing viewpoints in order to make informed decisions. Legal education and training includes a strong emphasis on questioning assumptions and probing for further information.

Rather than crippling the company through risk aversion and overanalysis, however, having a lawyer on the early team contributes to a data-driven, analytic culture of thoughtful decision making. Further, lawyers are trained as advisers and service providers. They can ask questions, explore options, and execute on answers, but they don’t expect to make the final call. This comfort with playing a supporting role helps avoid the egocentrism that can cripple any organization, particularly a nascent one.

The lawyer’s craft sometimes can be boiled down to a willingness to immerse herself within the “fine print,” offering to read what no one else will on account of complexity, length, or sheer dryness. Trained to ensure that even simple advice is backed by evidence, lawyers read closely to the point of comprehension as a matter of professional responsibility. Such a skill enables a lawyer to take responsibility for a wider variety of important matters. Fledgling startups inevitably have to rely on analysis over experience. Lawyers fit well in such situations.

Not every lawyer is well suited for the gig, however. A lawyer with the qualifications outlined above needs a tolerance for risk. For one thing, she must be willing to give up her plush office and lucrative salary for a computer station at a long table and compensation in the form of prayers, otherwise known as stock options. Her professional risk tolerance must follow suit. An essential attribute of a business attorney is providing “risk-adjusted” advice, and the level of tolerable risk for a startup generally far exceeds that for a Fortune 500 company. Lawyers at startups need to recognize that a workable answer today is often preferable to the perfect answer tomorrow; hand-wringers need not apply.

But risk tolerance must be accompanied by a stiff spine in situations where the company’s momentum (and the CEO’s vision) hurtles on a collision course with the law or the company’s outstanding commitments. In these cases, a willingness to speak up is one of the many things lawyers can bring to the table.

Daniel Doktori is the Chief of Staff and General Counsel at Credly, a digital credential service provider. He previously represented startup companies at WilmerHale, a law firm.

Sarah Reed is the Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of MPM Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in early-stage life sciences companies. Previously, she was the general counsel of Charles River Ventures, an early-stage technology venture capital firm.

Managing Creditor Risk through Inter-Creditor Agreements

Posted on August 18, 2017 by admin in Capital, Development, entrepreneurship, International Investment, investment advisory, real estate, Small Businesses, strategy, transaction advisory, Uncategorized, upscale, wealth

James is the CEO of HOC Global Logistics, a company which provides shipping solutions to large organisations. Having become tired of leasing cargo ships from large vessel owners, the company desires to purchase its own ships which they can use and also lease to 3rd parties. James approaches Lakeside Bank for a Term Loan to finance the $50 million transaction.

The Bank after reviewing the loan proposal filed by HOC Logistics, informed James that the transaction was larger than Lakeside bank could comfortable handle. However they are able to loan him $20 million on the security of the purchased ship. James accepts the terms and applies for loans from Cityscape Capital Ltd , HSCB, Shanghai Bank and Union Finance Ltd. The individual loans have different terms, interest rates and security interests. The complexity of the transaction is so mind boggling that James sets up an appointment with his Lawyers to advise him on how to manage the relationships between the multiple creditors in such a manner as to enable the company satisfy all its loan liabilities. He is advised to structure and negotiate an intercreditor agreement among the several creditors, thereby ensuring he has a more convenient financing process.

An intercreditor agreement seeks to govern the relationship between a range of creditors providing finance to the same borrower. An intercreditor agreement entered into by senior and junior creditors can be expected to rank the senior and junior security, subordinate the debt of the junior creditors to that of the senior creditors, restrict the junior creditors’ rights of enforcement for a specified standstill period and impose payment freezes on the junior debt in prescribed default situations.

In highly leveraged transactions such as leveraged buyouts and certain acquisition finance transactions, funding may be structured into a number of different tranches of lenders who stipulate slightly different lending terms and interest rates for the funds they advance. Senior lenders and mezzanine lenders usually take security over the assets of the borrower, over shares acquired and over the target group’s assets. In addition, guarantees will be given by the borrower and may also be given by the target group.

The senior creditors tend to have a stronger negotiating position than do the junior creditors, so it is usual practice for the senior bank lenders and mezzanine lenders to appoint a single security agent (or security trustee) to hold the security package on trust for the benefit of all the secured creditors. The intercreditor agreement contains provisions dealing with enforcement of the security, usually requiring the junior creditors (the mezzanine lenders) to desist from enforcement for the standstill period so as to leave the way clear for the senior creditors (the senior lenders and any hedge counterparties) to instruct the security agent as to when and how to enforce their right to the secured assets.

Can Your Landlord throw You Out Without Notice?

Posted on April 7, 2017 by admin in real estate, Small Businesses, transaction advisory, Uncategorized

201510211625500312

James is a sound engineer, working with a prominent oil and gas servicing company in Lagos. He lives in a rented 2- bedroom apartment in the Lekki environs with his wife and younger brother. By all accounts he is an upwardly mobile young man with lots of prospects.

Disaster struck in December 2016, James lost his job due to rationalizations at his company, arising from the national recession. Having been sacked, James found it difficult to pay his bills, including his house rent on time as he was used to doing. After making several demands for the rent for close to 6 months , the landlord came with some thugs and forcibly evicted James and his family from the flat, throwing his property into the street and locking the door. James came to his lawyers for advice on how to deal with the actions of his landlord.

The law is clear on the rights of a landlord and a tenant, especially with respect to the termination of the tenancy and the recovery of possession of the premises by the landlord. In the absence of any clause in the tenancy agreement stating otherwise, the landlord is expected to give the tenant adequate notice to quit and deliver up the premises. This general rule is that a yearly tenant should receive at least 6 months notice, a quarterly and semi-annual tenant is entitled to 3 months notice, while a monthly tenant is entitled to 1 month notice. Failure to issue and serve the proper notice to the tenant renders the notice invalid. The notice should be given before the termination of the existing tenancy, as an additional day’s delay creates a fresh tenancy.

If the tenant still refuses to vacate the premises after the expiration of the quit notice, the next step to take is to serve the tenant with a 7 day Notice of owners intention to apply to recover possession. After this expires, the landlord may then sue the tenant and after the magistrate has heard the matter, the court may make an order evicting the tenant if it is proven that he has breached any of the covenants or is in arrears of rent.

The effect of the forcible and unlawful eviction of James is as follows:

The landlord committed a crime by forcibly evicting James
The landlord is in breach of the tenant’s right to quiet possession and enjoyment of the premises.
The landlord may be liable for assault if himself or any of the thugs assaults James in the process of forcibly removing him from the premises.

These breaches may render the landlord civilly and criminally liable. Consequently, it is essential to follow due process in the termination of tenancies.